Proponents of both sides of the debate on legalizing same-sex
marriage presented their cases before a full house at the UCLA
School of Law on Monday in a forum that included a surprise change
of speakers.
About 200 people attended the event and heard three guests speak
for and against the topic recently thrust into national
spotlight.
A Nov. 18 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
sparked debates nationwide after saying the state could not
prohibit same-sex marriages. The Massachusetts House of
Representatives is considering legislation that would allow for
civil unions instead of marriage.
The Charles R. Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law, an
organization dedicated to furthering the rights of homosexual
couples, funded the debate. One student said she was impressed by
the Williams Project’s ability to host a two-sided debate
despite its position in favor of same-sex marriages.
The speakers included nationally syndicated columnist Maggie
Gallagher and the moderator, UCLA Law Professor William Rubenstein,
who joined the debate about halfway through to replace a speaker
who did not come.
The speakers addressed issues such as the right to marry and
historical court rulings that outlawed marriage discrimination.
The speakers also debated whether prohibiting same-sex marriage
was gender discrimination.
“A person in a same-sex relationship cannot marry strictly
because of his/her sex,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a USC law
professor. “That is, by definition, gender
discrimination.”
Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and
Public Policy, noted other laws did provide certain benefits to
only one group of people but were not considered
discriminatory.
“Is it age discrimination to require people to be 62 years
old to get Social Security benefits?” Gallagher asked.
“No, because the reason Social Security was enacted was to
help the elderly.”
Some argued the traditional definition of marriage should
remain.
Law Professor Lynn Wardle, from Brigham Young University in
Utah, noted marriage has historically been the “preferred
relationship” in society and has been between a man and a
woman.
But Chemerinsky said for those people who oppose same-sex
marriages, there is a less drastic solution than the outright
prohibition of them.
“To people that don’t like same-sex marriages, I
offer a simple solution: Don’t marry someone of the same
sex.”
Though the majority of the audience favored same-sex marriages,
many students said listening to the view opposite their own was
valuable.
“I definitely liked hearing the con arguments,” said
Paymon Ebrahimzadeh, a second-year music student who favors
same-sex marriages. “It helps to know what, ideologically,
we’re up against.”
The event offered continuing legal education credit, which
lawyers must acquire to stay current with the bar, to practitioners
who paid a $20 registration fee, said an event spokeswoman.
About 20 lawyers attended the event for credit, the spokeswoman
said. Students, faculty and gay rights activists also attended.